Context and interpretation

Jutta Räsänen, one of the members in our group, presented us three week ago
the fake art criticism made by herself - actually it was a kind of art act.
The criticim was published in Helsingin Sanomat (with the help of
copymachine) and that defined strongly the context of our interpretations.
Afterwards I analyzed my comments and interpretations of Jutta's text - and
the picture of the artwork enclosed - and I realized how clear and firm
conceptions had about the context - what are the possible or supposed ways
to state an art criticism in Helsingin Sanomat. I took it as a self-evident
fact.

During the last weeks there has been a violent discussion in the media
about the nature photographs of Hannu Hautala. He is one of the most famous
nature photographers in Finland - a kind of guru in that area. The latest
book of Hautala included five photos, which were manipulated digitaly with
the help of a computer. The artist didn't informed readers about this
reconstruction and many nature photographers get mad of that. In their
opinion the photo must be "the truth view of the nature". The photographer
must have seen that view or moment and he or she witnesses it with the
photo - which also offers the others the possibility to enjoy that
experience. So, if we interpret nature photographs, we took it as a
self-evident that the photo has been taken in a real situation (in nature)
and it is a reliable piece of evidence about that moment - althoug we
become conscious that every photo itself is an interpretation of the
subject. The interpretation of the photo is always related to the context,
time and place - but are we aware of the qualities and preconditions it
includes.

What are you as a photographer allowed and supposed to do within the genre
of the nature photography ?